I'll say that in a normal day, I don't drive a couple hundred miles. Based on that, I'd strongly consider buying such a vehicle, if it was affordable and the price to charge it was less than the price of gas to cover the same distance. I guess I'm potentially that kind of idiot.
The funny thing about this idea is that even if the server side of the web decides to implement some fancy new DRM scheme baked into html, DRM proponents can't be sure that all user agents will care. They'll either deny access to non-conforming agents or have ineffective DRM, at which point users will have a starting point for bitching about inaccessible content, just as they did with Apple and iTunes content (or no reason to care, if the restrictions can be bypassed).
This is a near universal "donotwant", so while certain interests may succeed in getting DRM included as an aspect of a document markup specification (*sigh*), that doesn't mean users will accept it or desire it or be happy about it or shut up about the problems it causes. Making noise now serves to signal that there will be problems down the road when everyone realizes what the hell is happening.
One of these is what I think of when I think of legacy Sun hardware (well, I really think of E1000's, Ultra 30's and 60's, and SparcStation 5's, 10's and 20's, but those are harder to find links for these days).
Incidentally, I worked for the company linked above about 13 years ago testing and building systems...good times.
A poem about the faceless masses of scientists might be inspiring...if written by a talented poet...which was kinda what the person you were replying to was saying about Hawking's ability to communicate ideas and formulate questions. Sheesh.
Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you anti-military...just noting that there are a large number of people who are that fervently believe that manning should not be/have been punished
I also believe that the public has a right to know what its leadership is up to and that our military should be accountable. I won't attempt to argue the necessity of any particular war...that's strictly opinion when you're talking about whether it's worth saving or taking lives.
You say that since we don't know of any deaths that are directly related to the release of this information, then there was zero effect. Then why have any classified information at all? Why not make all troop movements, intelligence, and orders public? Certainly if releasing *some* information (a large amount, I suppose) had no effect, then we're just wasting money trying to maintain information security at all, right?
Leaks that disclose operational intelligence *do* harm national security. They imperil our fighting forces and their allies and sources or (at a minimum) force swift changes in plans and relocations of individuals on the taxpayer dime (if we're talking about wasting billions).
Classified info is much more than what you mention, and if you don't really know that, then maybe that's why you don't think this Manning's disclosure was dangerous.
...You think it's fair that we're throwing millions and billions of dollars at people who hate us while our own are starving and unable to take care of themselves...
Umm, no. No, I don't. I think it's unfair that you find Lamo's disclosure about a single individual reprehensible but Manning's laudable.
...Lame-o is nobody but a self-righeous prick who isn't even consciously aware of why he does the things he does, and manages to hide that fact from even himself by using meandering, verbose, and contradictory language. He claims to be sober but still has the slimy selfish attitude of a dope addict. You're right about one thing, though, Lameo is indeed just another sad wimp.
I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that I'm sorry you hate him so much. For what it's worth, I certainly don't feel that way about Manning. I think he did something stupid and dangerous, and that he should have availed himself of other well-known, often-used channels to report what he saw. Officers and enlisted *do* get court-martialed and relieved of duty over atrocities...at least in the US military...
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?
I'm guessing the weight of criticism Lamo has faced has forced him to figure out a plausible alternate explanation (aside from "Manning was going to get US soldiers killed, so I turned him in") that was more palatable to folks who don't much care for the US or its military.
I think he is indeed scared, and likely feeling impotent and bullied. I might feel that way too if I snitched on a traitor and got routinely called a "duplicitous, disingenuous little self-righteous and traitorous faggot", and had people wishing I'd suffer a repeat of a public mugging, for example.
As someone who appreciates the speakings of fellow pedants, I'll point to the phrase I was mentioning and note that I used "enumerates" as a synonym for "lists" (and followed that with "identifies" which should have given some context).
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The second word in that bit of text was what I referred to, so while it is true that the several amendments serve to limit our government, it is not correct to say that there are no rights enumerated therein (or else they would have used a different word, I suppose).
The government knows what car you have. So they do have the right to know what you own.
And another thing: you need a driver's license to drive a car. Wouldn't it be logical to need a license to wield a gun? And to have all guns registered?
If we're talking about logic, there's nothing in the Constitution or its amendments that enumerates a right of the citizens of the U.S.A. to drive a car. There *is* one amendment that identifies a right to bear arms.
It's not the Constitution itself that enumerates a right to bear arms, but rather the second amendment to that set of central laws.
Some people don't understand that the constitution can be changed by the people it governs via amendments. Some people think that you should simply believe that those laws mean whatever you want, and that people were monumentally stupid about human nature 200 years ago.
Some people believe that rather than going through the effort of actually changing the Constitution to reflect a consensus of what the people deem to be correct, it should mean whatever we want all the time.
I don't *own* any guns yet, although I have fired them before (never at another human, thankfully), but if I *did* own any guns, I'd say that if you have the courage of your convictions, then don't post anonymously. If you want to tell me "fuck you", don't be all covert about who you are...you don't need to be secretive.
There's this great thing called the *First* amendment that means you can say whatever you want, basically, but you probably think that's a silly anachronism, too.
...I don't just feel he shouldn't be punished, I applaud his actions as a decent human being.
I respect your stance and ability to state it clearly. I disagree, but I can understand your point of view (and my posts are typically diplomatic...helps focus on the actual discussion and not on verbal pimp-slaps).
...He did agree to fight in a clearly unjustified war.....thats pretty treasonous in my book. Those releases were the only positive thing he did for the people of this country, which is who his allegiance is supposed to be to, above and beyond the leadership...
"Agreeing to fight in an unjustified war" is a statement founded upon an opinion, and I appreciate that different people have different opinions on that matter. That would be a third issue, which is not part of what he is accused of. One might make the case that he should have objected to his deployment orders on the grounds that they were unlawful, but he did not do that either.
Treason is a very specific charge that has to do with betraying the nation to which you are bound as a citizen. Whether a particular person feels an act is treasonous doesn't make it so, only the facts and the act itself can do that, and it doesn't appear that anyone in a position to charge Manning with a crime thought that his agreement to fight in a justified war was worthy of investigation.
I get it. You feel that the war was wrong to begin with, he pointed out some awfulness that occurred during said war, and you believe he shouldn't be punished for doing what he did. I won't tell you that's an invalid point of view, because it's not.
What I *will* say is that none of those feelings are what this trial or the charges against him are about. Those feelings may come into play in the form of political pressure, but they have little to do with the case aside from the likely severity of his punishment.
...Does the UCMJ contemplate the use of torture ? Because torture is what Manning has had to endure for the last 2 years awaiting for a trial. This trial is a farce, as were farce the trials held in the old good Soviet Union...
You're conflating two different issues. One is whether the conditions of his confinement were acceptable or appropriate, the other is whether he did something sufficiently inappropriate as to be considered treason.
Does a long confinement that might be considered torture change the events that led to the confinement? No. It may well be the thing that keeps Manning from facing a life sentence, since it helps place public favor more on his side.
As was mentioned before, there are channels by which unlawful acts can be reported without concern for retribution. It's not a perfect system, but it does work. Manning could have contacted the Adjutant General and made sure that both operational security and the law of war and human rights were respected, but he chose not to.
That was his decision, and none of us can say whether it was the most correct thing to do, morally, but we can definitely say that it was unlawful, according to the rules that Manning agreed to follow when enlisting in the US military.
Well-executed, sure. Novel and non-obvious? No. An invention? No. It's software, which is math. If they attempted to patent paper with a specific translucence so that you saw the back side of the paper bleeding through a bit when you turned the page, and made the case that it was non-obvious, etc, then fine, but they didn't.
Yet another article forcing me to use the #fuckapple tag. I *really* wish they would go back to making cool, useful, nice looking stuff instead of saying "nobody else gets to try".
If the friggin' teamsters union looked at the books and said "hey guys, this has to happen" (which they did), I seriously doubt that this is as simple as greedy management is sticking up the middle finger to the employees.
In the present situation, it seems that without concessions from the bakers' union that other unions have already observed to be necessary, there will be no twinkies and 18,000 fewer job pretty soon.
I get it. The bakers' union is fighting for the rights of their members, and thinks this is a good place to make a stand. If this was Schwebels or Mrs. Baird, the internet wouldn't give a damn.
...Let little Chinese companies make non-Android phones and MP3 players with derivative versions. Who cares? Without the Android brand, it's small-fry...
That sounds a lot like what Sun thought about Java. Then again, Sun failed to execute on a mobile Java-based platform, so Google might have a better chance of making that line of attack work for them.
Ahh...I understand now...you were criticizing the proposed attack, rather than how to find the transmitters that would be required to carry it out.
You could take out a very complex freq-hopping transmission tower by doing some simple multiplexed transmission with a directional antenna (several per tower, as someone pointed out down thread)...don't have to time-sync if you're not trying to establish communications, just need a strong enough signal.
If they're broadcasting on a known frequency, then not long.
Radio frequency direction finding equipment is not new, nor is it's use in a military capacity. Ask someone ex-Army who used to have a 98 or 33 as the first two digits of their MOS...(former 33T speaking)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll say that in a normal day, I don't drive a couple hundred miles. Based on that, I'd strongly consider buying such a vehicle, if it was affordable and the price to charge it was less than the price of gas to cover the same distance. I guess I'm potentially that kind of idiot.
Can't take it...
<grammarnazi>'affects' is a verb (not in this sentence, but in normal use). 'effects' is a noun.</grammarnazi>
...that you're either old or you worked for the US government (directly or indirectly) or both.
The funny thing about this idea is that even if the server side of the web decides to implement some fancy new DRM scheme baked into html, DRM proponents can't be sure that all user agents will care. They'll either deny access to non-conforming agents or have ineffective DRM, at which point users will have a starting point for bitching about inaccessible content, just as they did with Apple and iTunes content (or no reason to care, if the restrictions can be bypassed).
This is a near universal "donotwant", so while certain interests may succeed in getting DRM included as an aspect of a document markup specification (*sigh*), that doesn't mean users will accept it or desire it or be happy about it or shut up about the problems it causes. Making noise now serves to signal that there will be problems down the road when everyone realizes what the hell is happening.
One of these is what I think of when I think of legacy Sun hardware (well, I really think of E1000's, Ultra 30's and 60's, and SparcStation 5's, 10's and 20's, but those are harder to find links for these days).
Incidentally, I worked for the company linked above about 13 years ago testing and building systems...good times.
Wait...does this mean that if HBO gets flagged 5 more times they go to jail? Sweet! Self-correcting legislation is awesome!
Isn't 'nihao' Chinese?
A poem about the faceless masses of scientists might be inspiring...if written by a talented poet...which was kinda what the person you were replying to was saying about Hawking's ability to communicate ideas and formulate questions. Sheesh.
Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you anti-military...just noting that there are a large number of people who are that fervently believe that manning should not be/have been punished
I also believe that the public has a right to know what its leadership is up to and that our military should be accountable. I won't attempt to argue the necessity of any particular war...that's strictly opinion when you're talking about whether it's worth saving or taking lives.
You say that since we don't know of any deaths that are directly related to the release of this information, then there was zero effect. Then why have any classified information at all? Why not make all troop movements, intelligence, and orders public? Certainly if releasing *some* information (a large amount, I suppose) had no effect, then we're just wasting money trying to maintain information security at all, right?
Leaks that disclose operational intelligence *do* harm national security. They imperil our fighting forces and their allies and sources or (at a minimum) force swift changes in plans and relocations of individuals on the taxpayer dime (if we're talking about wasting billions).
Classified info is much more than what you mention, and if you don't really know that, then maybe that's why you don't think this Manning's disclosure was dangerous.
Umm, no. No, I don't. I think it's unfair that you find Lamo's disclosure about a single individual reprehensible but Manning's laudable.
I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that I'm sorry you hate him so much. For what it's worth, I certainly don't feel that way about Manning. I think he did something stupid and dangerous, and that he should have availed himself of other well-known, often-used channels to report what he saw. Officers and enlisted *do* get court-martialed and relieved of duty over atrocities...at least in the US military...
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?
I'm guessing the weight of criticism Lamo has faced has forced him to figure out a plausible alternate explanation (aside from "Manning was going to get US soldiers killed, so I turned him in") that was more palatable to folks who don't much care for the US or its military.
I think he is indeed scared, and likely feeling impotent and bullied. I might feel that way too if I snitched on a traitor and got routinely called a "duplicitous, disingenuous little self-righteous and traitorous faggot", and had people wishing I'd suffer a repeat of a public mugging, for example.
Ahh...missed that, actually (in the article I looked at). I stand corrected.
As someone who appreciates the speakings of fellow pedants, I'll point to the phrase I was mentioning and note that I used "enumerates" as a synonym for "lists" (and followed that with "identifies" which should have given some context).
The second word in that bit of text was what I referred to, so while it is true that the several amendments serve to limit our government, it is not correct to say that there are no rights enumerated therein (or else they would have used a different word, I suppose).
I'm not sure that's right...where are you getting that from?
If we're talking about logic, there's nothing in the Constitution or its amendments that enumerates a right of the citizens of the U.S.A. to drive a car. There *is* one amendment that identifies a right to bear arms.
It's not the Constitution itself that enumerates a right to bear arms, but rather the second amendment to that set of central laws.
Some people don't understand that the constitution can be changed by the people it governs via amendments. Some people think that you should simply believe that those laws mean whatever you want, and that people were monumentally stupid about human nature 200 years ago.
Some people believe that rather than going through the effort of actually changing the Constitution to reflect a consensus of what the people deem to be correct, it should mean whatever we want all the time.
I don't *own* any guns yet, although I have fired them before (never at another human, thankfully), but if I *did* own any guns, I'd say that if you have the courage of your convictions, then don't post anonymously. If you want to tell me "fuck you", don't be all covert about who you are...you don't need to be secretive.
There's this great thing called the *First* amendment that means you can say whatever you want, basically, but you probably think that's a silly anachronism, too.
To the person modding this as troll, just so you know, I disagree. Someone voicing a consistent opinion without name calling or baiting ain't a troll.
I respect your stance and ability to state it clearly. I disagree, but I can understand your point of view (and my posts are typically diplomatic...helps focus on the actual discussion and not on verbal pimp-slaps).
"Agreeing to fight in an unjustified war" is a statement founded upon an opinion, and I appreciate that different people have different opinions on that matter. That would be a third issue, which is not part of what he is accused of. One might make the case that he should have objected to his deployment orders on the grounds that they were unlawful, but he did not do that either.
Treason is a very specific charge that has to do with betraying the nation to which you are bound as a citizen. Whether a particular person feels an act is treasonous doesn't make it so, only the facts and the act itself can do that, and it doesn't appear that anyone in a position to charge Manning with a crime thought that his agreement to fight in a justified war was worthy of investigation.
I get it. You feel that the war was wrong to begin with, he pointed out some awfulness that occurred during said war, and you believe he shouldn't be punished for doing what he did. I won't tell you that's an invalid point of view, because it's not.
What I *will* say is that none of those feelings are what this trial or the charges against him are about. Those feelings may come into play in the form of political pressure, but they have little to do with the case aside from the likely severity of his punishment.
You're conflating two different issues. One is whether the conditions of his confinement were acceptable or appropriate, the other is whether he did something sufficiently inappropriate as to be considered treason.
Does a long confinement that might be considered torture change the events that led to the confinement? No. It may well be the thing that keeps Manning from facing a life sentence, since it helps place public favor more on his side.
As was mentioned before, there are channels by which unlawful acts can be reported without concern for retribution. It's not a perfect system, but it does work. Manning could have contacted the Adjutant General and made sure that both operational security and the law of war and human rights were respected, but he chose not to.
That was his decision, and none of us can say whether it was the most correct thing to do, morally, but we can definitely say that it was unlawful, according to the rules that Manning agreed to follow when enlisting in the US military.
Well-executed, sure. Novel and non-obvious? No. An invention? No. It's software, which is math. If they attempted to patent paper with a specific translucence so that you saw the back side of the paper bleeding through a bit when you turned the page, and made the case that it was non-obvious, etc, then fine, but they didn't.
Yet another article forcing me to use the #fuckapple tag. I *really* wish they would go back to making cool, useful, nice looking stuff instead of saying "nobody else gets to try".
If the friggin' teamsters union looked at the books and said "hey guys, this has to happen" (which they did), I seriously doubt that this is as simple as greedy management is sticking up the middle finger to the employees.
In the present situation, it seems that without concessions from the bakers' union that other unions have already observed to be necessary, there will be no twinkies and 18,000 fewer job pretty soon.
I get it. The bakers' union is fighting for the rights of their members, and thinks this is a good place to make a stand. If this was Schwebels or Mrs. Baird, the internet wouldn't give a damn.
That sounds a lot like what Sun thought about Java. Then again, Sun failed to execute on a mobile Java-based platform, so Google might have a better chance of making that line of attack work for them.
Ahh...I understand now...you were criticizing the proposed attack, rather than how to find the transmitters that would be required to carry it out.
You could take out a very complex freq-hopping transmission tower by doing some simple multiplexed transmission with a directional antenna (several per tower, as someone pointed out down thread)...don't have to time-sync if you're not trying to establish communications, just need a strong enough signal.
I'm unclear on what you're getting at, exactly...
If they're broadcasting on a known frequency, then not long.
Radio frequency direction finding equipment is not new, nor is it's use in a military capacity. Ask someone ex-Army who used to have a 98 or 33 as the first two digits of their MOS...(former 33T speaking)